The American Psychological Association and homosexual partners raising kids

[Rau]

I don’t think these sexual attractions should automatically be considered psychological disorders just because society finds these attractions to be bizarre. These sexual attractions should be considered psychological disorders if they involve being anti social or is characterized with clinically significant disturbance in an individual’s cognitive, emotion, regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental process underlying mental functioning.

Anti social behavior is not intrinsically involved with homosexuality and homosexuality does not fit with the definition of a psychological disorder.

This is the kind of “pragmatism” (or subjectivity) I referred to above. I wonder what you make of 2 healthy men shunning relationships with women and instead preferring to partake in romance and sexual acts with each other. How do you rationalise 2 men exchanging semen? Do you see anything in the design of the human race - comprising 2 complementary sexes - that makes sense of this? Do you think that such desires could suggest that something is amiss?

 

[edwest2]

Is the debate REALLY about who is capable of raising children, or is it about whether society should go about constructing families where one of more parents is absent by design…?

Yes, of course it is. It’s a radical proposal that is inconsistent with the rights of families as rightly understood and to redefine “family” by force of law.

Ed

 

[Ridgerunner]

I understand the DSM takes the view that if one’s condition:

• does not represent a threat to others;
• does not materially impede a person from living productively;
• does not cause the person to seek a cure

then there is little point in including the condition in the DSM. The absence of an accepted treatment might also weigh on such a decision.

Thus, exclusion from the DSM is s pragmatic statement about one’s condition, rather than a judgement that there is no condition warranting further study.

It’s not a pragmatic statement.

Some have sought cures for homosexuality. In dismissing any attempt to aid such a goal as fruitless, unnecessary or even criminal, the APA takes a moral, not a scientific position.

And effects on others are not even considered in the exclusion of homosexuality as a “disorder”.

 

[edwest2]

It’s not a pragmatic statement.

Some have sought cures for homosexuality. In dismissing any attempt to aid such a goal as fruitless, unnecessary or even criminal, the APA takes a moral, not a scientific position.

And effects on others are not even considered in the exclusion of homosexuality as a “disorder”.

The APA has lobbied and issued briefs used in courts.

apa.org/pubs/newsletters/access/2013/03-19/same-sex.aspx

Ed

 

[lemongrass80]

That is correct. We were called “male chauvenist pigs” by the Women’s Liberation Movement in the 1970s. All men were the enemy, all women were the victims. The patriarchy - that’s us, guys - had to be overthrown.

Secular media champions men and women who sleep around. Time to stop and realize we are being lied to by the “entertainment” media all the time. That immoral portrayals means a lot of people don’t even know how to have a relationship. They don’t know what a real “family” actually is but boy, are we getting a lot of bad info about ‘alternative lifestyles.’

Wake up, my fellow Catholics. amazon.com/Be-Man-Becoming-God-Created/dp/1586174037

Ed

You’re just listing a bunch of things you find objectionable and trying to correlate them to homosexuality. Gay people existed before the 1970’s.

 

[lemongrass80]

The homosexual men who grow up in normal families still do not understand true manhood and because they have often been over exposed to society"s false perception of manhood which is heavily influenced by feminist ideology.

We see this false manhood shown by the sitcoms where husbands are seen as weak, stupid fools who only consider sex as the point of their marriage. Another example of false manhood is how secular culture champions men who sleep around with women and have numerous out of wedlock children. Along with the fact that a vast majority of them begin to take on female social expressions due the fact that they are unable to relate to males

Basically feminist ideology dehumanizes men and reduces us to brutes who are only concerned with sports and sex. But true manhood is rooted in Christ and Catholic teaching on sexual ethics and morals

So feminism caused homosexuality. Mmmmm kay.

 

[bobballen_18]

What evidence do you have for this? How do you explain all the gay men who grew up in perfectly normal families and had great relationships with their dads?

I think that in some sense this is a fair question - in my own experience with SSA I have wondered this as well, since I was certainly not abused as a kid and I have always had at least a decent relationship with my Dad. However, though I am sure this could (probably correctly) be observed as being biased, I am skeptical of someone’s opinion of a “good relationship with their father” if they are themselves not even aware of what appropriate relationships are with the opposite sex - i.e., they are sexually attracted to members of the same sex and they think it’s okay to have “sex” with someone of the same sex. For this reason, I would tend to echo TradCatholic27’s view as seen below. It has a lot to do with knowing what true manhood is, and at the risk of offending males who are (or claim to currently be) fully satisfied with their gay lifestyle, I believe that anyone who has (especially a large degree of) same-sex attraction does not fully understand how to be a man, for various reasons, often through no fault of their own.

The homosexual men who grow up in normal families still do not understand true manhood and because they have often been over exposed to society"s false perception of manhood which is heavily influenced by feminist ideology.

We see this false manhood shown by the sitcoms where husbands are seen as weak, stupid fools who only consider sex as the point of their marriage. Another example of false manhood is how secular culture champions men who sleep around with women and have numerous out of wedlock children. Along with the fact that a vast majority of them begin to take on female social expressions due the fact that they are unable to relate to males

Basically feminist ideology dehumanizes men and reduces us to brutes who are only concerned with sports and sex. But true manhood is rooted in Christ and Catholic teaching on sexual ethics and morals

 

[kozlosap]

So feminism caused homosexuality. Mmmmm kay.

LOL! Do you mean to tell me that there were gay individuals before women could vote and own property and work outside the home? There are some very well respected (by me, at least), posters on CAF that truly believe that the majority of problems we face in 2015 all began with the sexual revolution in the mid to late 60’s, including gay people beginning to leave their closets and women using contraception without thinking it is a mortal sin.

 

[Thorolfr]

I think that in some sense this is a fair question - in my own experience with SSA I have wondered this as well, since I was certainly not abused as a kid and I have always had at least a decent relationship with my Dad. However, though I am sure this could (probably correctly) be observed as being biased, I am skeptical of someone’s opinion of a “good relationship with their father” if they are themselves not even aware of what appropriate relationships are with the opposite sex - i.e., they are sexually attracted to members of the same sex and they think it’s okay to have “sex” with someone of the same sex. For this reason, I would tend to echo TradCatholic27’s view as seen below. It has a lot to do with knowing what true manhood is, and at the risk of offending males who are (or claim to currently be) fully satisfied with their gay lifestyle, I believe that anyone who has (especially a large degree of) same-sex attraction does not fully understand how to be a man, for various reasons, often through no fault of their own.

So could a gay man become straight if they learned and understood how to be a man? Maybe there should be “How to Be a Man” classes for gay men who want to become straight.

P.S.: That’s probably what reparative therapy programs claim to do…teach gay men how to be real men.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

So could a gay man become straight if they learned and understood how to be a man? Maybe there should be “How to Be a Man” classes for gay men who want to become straight.

P.S.: That’s probably what reparative therapy programs claim to do…teach gay men how to be real men.

Yes, it is. I’ve watched videos and read descriptions of different SSA support group type activities, and sports, manly sports like football, are are one of the activities they do together to practice being real men.

What I’d like to see instead is support groups aimed at abusers to learn how to be real men and not abuse their partners and/or children.

 

[Rau]

It’s not a pragmatic statement.

Some have sought cures for homosexuality. In dismissing any attempt to aid such a goal as fruitless, unnecessary or even criminal, the APA takes a moral, not a scientific position.

And effects on others are not even considered in the exclusion of homosexuality as a “disorder”.

Given there is not an agreed treatment, attempts at treatment could well be immoral. But your response is not relevant to my explanation of why the DSM takes a pragmatic, rather than scientific stance in its decision to exclude homosexuality.

Paedophilia is in the DSM. In its description, there is much similarity with homosexuality. It is a threat to others, a key difference which will ensure it remains in the DSM.

 

[edwest2]

LOL! Do you mean to tell me that there were gay individuals before women could vote and own property and work outside the home? There are some very well respected (by me, at least), posters on CAF that truly believe that the majority of problems we face in 2015 all began with the sexual revolution in the mid to late 60’s, including gay people beginning to leave their closets and women using contraception without thinking it is a mortal sin.

That would be accurate because the facts bear it out. It’s called “slow poisoning” or, in psychological warfare terms: conditioning and social engineering. It could not be done quickly.

Ed

 

[Ridgerunner]

Given there is not an agreed treatment, attempts at treatment could well be immoral. But your response is not relevant to my explanation of why the DSM takes a pragmatic, rather than scientific stance in its decision to exclude homosexuality.

Paedophilia is in the DSM. In its description, there is much similarity with homosexuality. It is a threat to others, a key difference which will ensure it remains in the DSM.

Homosexuality was also once termed a disorder in the DSM. We’re probably a long way from approving adult sex with children, or at least one hopes so. However, one Supreme Court justice appears to believe age 12 is a good age for sexual consent.

And attempts to prevent treatment of homosexuality could also be immoral, and probably are, since those attempts prevent people who want treatment from getting it.

The DSM’s approach to homosexuality and a number of sexual perversions is not “pragmatic”. Do you really think there’s nothing harmful about koprophilia and that it’s “pragmatic” to think of it as “normal”?

 

[Rau]

Homosexuality was also once termed a disorder in the DSM. We’re probably a long way from approving adult sex with children, or at least one hopes so. However, one Supreme Court justice appears to believe age 12 is a good age for sexual consent.

And attempts to prevent treatment of homosexuality could also be immoral, and probably are, since those attempts prevent people who want treatment from getting it.

The DSM’s approach to homosexuality and a number of sexual perversions is not “pragmatic”. Do you really think there’s nothing harmful about koprophilia and that it’s “pragmatic” to think of it as “normal”?

Coprophilia is only regarded as clinically significant - and thus the diagnosis is only made - if it causes the patient distress or leads to inappropriate behaviours toward others. This is typical of all the paraphilias. Here again is evidence of the pragmatic nature of the DSM. I am not being critical of it with that statement. I am explaining that the exclusion of a condition such as homosexuality does not represent a scientific conclusion about body and or mind, but a practical one about the capacity of the individual to function effectively and without distress to himself or risk to others. The absence of accepted treatments and the lack of perceived need to be treated by many of the affected are no doubt factors also.

I am not aware of any treatment for homosexuality that has broad support among clinicians, but if such exists, then of course it should be accessible.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Coprophilia is only regarded as clinically significant - and thus the diagnosis is only made - if it causes the patient distress or leads to inappropriate behaviours toward others. This is typical of all the paraphilias. Here again is evidence of the pragmatic nature of the DSM. I am not being critical of it with that statement. I am explaining that the exclusion of a condition such as homosexuality does not represent a scientific conclusion about body and or mind, but a practical one about the capacity of the individual to function effectively and without distress to himself or risk to others. The absence of accepted treatments and the lack of perceived need to be treated by many of the affected are no doubt factors also.

I am not aware of any treatment for homosexuality that has broad support among clinicians, but if such exists, then of course it should be accessible.

Clinicians don’t dare support treatment for homosexuality for fear of ostracism by their peers and outright prosecution. I have talked to psychiatrists and psychologists about that, and if they trust you, they’ll tell you. I recall, for example, one psychiatrist informing me that homosexuals score high on the narcissism score. But he wouldn’t say it openly to others.

Coprophilia is not only disgusting to anyone around it, it’s dangerous to the person doing it, whether he’s stressed about it or not. There’s nothing pragmatic about leaving it to subjective judgments of the person who does it.

And the suicide rate among homosexuals is higher than that of others. Yes, I know everyone says it’s because of “societal disapproval”. But lots of things have societal disapproval, and there is no high suicide rate associated with them.

 

[Rau]

Clinicians don’t dare support treatment for homosexuality for fear of ostracism by their peers and outright prosecution. I have talked to psychiatrists and psychologists about that, and if they trust you, they’ll tell you. I recall, for example, one psychiatrist informing me that homosexuals score high on the narcissism score. But he wouldn’t say it openly to others.

Undoubtedly, a proportion of clinician’s take this position. However the lack of a established treatments is rather a problem, don’t you agree? IMHO, homosexuality is plainly aberrant, does cause some of those who experience it grief, and ought to be studied where that can be done ethically.

Coprophilia is not only disgusting to anyone around it, it’s dangerous to the person doing it, whether he’s stressed about it or not. There’s nothing pragmatic about leaving it to subjective judgments of the person who does it

. This condition is very rare, and little studied. Cases of persons ingesting the material in question (the key health risk) are even rarer. I don’t know what purpose is served in introducing it into this discussion - declaring coprophilia to be a “disorder” would be unlikely to upset anyone, so it does not support an argument of political bias in the DSM.

In the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), it is classified under ‘Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified’ (PNOS) along with other paraphilias such as necrophilia, zoophilia, klismaphilia, and telephone scatophilia. As with all paraphilias in the PNOS category, diagnosis is only made “if the behavior, sexual urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning…Fantasies, behaviors, or objects are paraphilic only when they lead to clinically significant distress or impairment (e.g., are obligatory, result in sexual dysfunction, require participation of non-consenting individuals, lead to legal complications, interfere with social relationships)”. The psychologist Dr Tamara Penix (Eastern Michigan University, USA) says there are no data indicating successful treatment of coprophilia. So, across a wide range of conditions, where the behaviour of the individuals concerned is puzzling (to say the least), and not easily explainable rationally, the DSM excludes them on grounds which are pragmatic. Again, I repeat that such should not be understood to be equivalent to saying “all is well with the people affected with these conditions”, but rather that, in all the circumstances (viz: lack of harm to others, no reduction in capacity to function socially, lack of patient desire for treatement, etc. etc.) there is “no compelling case for treatment”. *

And the suicide rate among homosexuals is higher than that of others. Yes, I know everyone says it’s because of “societal disapproval”. But lots of things have societal disapproval, and there is no high suicide rate associated with them.

Individuals thinking about suicide deserve help, whether or not they are homosexual. And for those that are homosexual, that treatment is unlikely to be directed at lifting their same sex attraction and instilling opposite sex attraction, for no means to do that is known.*

 

[Thorolfr]

I recall, for example, one psychiatrist informing me that homosexuals score high on the narcissism score. But he wouldn’t say it openly to others.

The statement “homosexuals score high on the narcissism score” is a silly stereotype. It’s like saying, “Catholics (or Lutherans, or brown haired people, etc.) score high on the narcissism score.” There are all kinds of people who are homosexuals, but being homosexual does not make someone narcissistic. So while some gay people might be narcissistic (just like some straight people or some Catholics or some Baptists or some Lutherans are narcissistic), not all of them will be narcissistic.

 

[Rau]

The statement “homosexuals score high on the narcissism score” is a silly stereotype. It’s like saying, “Catholics (or Lutherans, or brown haired people, etc.) score high on the narcissism score.” There are all kinds of people who are homosexuals, but being homosexual does not make someone narcissistic. So while some gay people might be narcissistic (just like some straight people or some Catholics or some Baptists or some Lutherans are narcissistic), not all of them will be narcissistic.

I don’t know if it’s a stereotype, but it is an imprecise statement. The issue of interest would be: Is narcissism more prevalent or pronounced among persons identifying as homosexual than among person not? I don’t know the answer (or the implications of a positive answer), but I have seen reference to studies that suggest it’s true.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Undoubtedly, a proportion of clinician’s take this position. However the lack of a established treatments is rather a problem, don’t you agree? IMHO, homosexuality is plainly aberrant, does cause some of those who experience it grief, and ought to be studied where that can be done ethically.

. This condition is very rare, and little studied. Cases of persons ingesting the material in question (the key health risk) are even rarer. I don’t know what purpose is served in introducing it into this discussion - declaring coprophilia to be a “disorder” would be unlikely to upset anyone, so it does not support an argument of political bias in the DSM.

In the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), it is classified under ‘Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified’ (PNOS) along with other paraphilias such as necrophilia, zoophilia, klismaphilia, and telephone scatophilia. As with all paraphilias in the PNOS category, diagnosis is only made “if the behavior, sexual urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning…Fantasies, behaviors, or objects are paraphilic only when they lead to clinically significant distress or impairment (e.g., are obligatory, result in sexual dysfunction, require participation of non-consenting individuals, lead to legal complications, interfere with social relationships)”. The psychologist Dr Tamara Penix (Eastern Michigan University, USA) says there are no data indicating successful treatment of coprophilia. So, across a wide range of conditions, where the behaviour of the individuals concerned is puzzling (to say the least), and not easily explainable rationally, the DSM excludes them on grounds which are pragmatic. Again, I repeat that such should not be understood to be equivalent to saying “all is well with the people affected with these conditions”, but rather that, in all the circumstances (viz: lack of harm to others, no reduction in capacity to function socially, lack of patient desire for treatement, etc. etc.) there is “no compelling case for treatment”. *

Individuals thinking about suicide deserve help, whether or not they are homosexual. And for those that are homosexual, that treatment is unlikely to be directed at lifting their same sex attraction and instilling opposite sex attraction, for no means to do that is known.*

My point was that the standards are subjective, not pragmatic.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The statement “homosexuals score high on the narcissism score” is a silly stereotype. It’s like saying, “Catholics (or Lutherans, or brown haired people, etc.) score high on the narcissism score.” There are all kinds of people who are homosexuals, but being homosexual does not make someone narcissistic. So while some gay people might be narcissistic (just like some straight people or some Catholics or some Baptists or some Lutherans are narcissistic), not all of them will be narcissistic.

Have it as you wish. I was told that by a psychiatrist of extremely high repute.

When you think about it, it does make a certain amount of “layman’s sense” when you consider where the term came from.